It’s not uncommon for narrators to fabricate hadith to combat growing problems in the community, and then place them into the mouth of the prophet. In fact, this is extremely common within the Hadith corpus. Scholars of hadith criticism have long recognized that political, theological, and sectarian motivations led to the fabrication of numerous hadith. This practice emerged as a way to lend divine authority to particular viewpoints by attributing statements to the Prophet Muhammad that he never actually said.
One significant example concerns hadith about the Khawarij movement. As this group emerged as a political and theological challenge in the early Islamic period, hadith appeared “predicting” their emergence and condemning them. These fabrications served to delegitimize the movement by suggesting the Prophet had foreknowledge of them and had already denounced them.
A particularly interesting case is the hadith recorded in Sunan Ibn Majah (ibnmajah:1584 and elsewhere), which has multiple chains of transmission converging on Masruq, who relates from Abdullah ibn Mas’ud that the Prophet said:
“He is not one of us who tears his garments, strikes his cheeks, and cries with the cry of the Days of Ignorance.”
This hadith prohibits excessive mourning practices that the hadith claimed were common in pre-Islamic Arabia. However, it’s worth noting that this tradition emerged prominently during periods of Sunni-Shia tension, as it could be deployed against Shia practices of ritual mourning, particularly those associated with the commemoration of Husayn ibn Ali’s martyrdom at Karbala. The timing and political utility of such hadith raises questions about their authenticity. While the isnad appears strong on the surface with multiple paths, this doesn’t necessarily guarantee authenticity, as fabricated hadith often have seemingly sound chains constructed to enhance their credibility.
The (S)CL and The Real CL
The diagram above can be interpreted in one of two ways. I will explain each understanding, and demonstrate which one I propose and why.
The SCL is Responsible – Masruq
When looking at the diagram, one understanding that could be derived from this is that Masruq, being the seemingly common link (SCL) of the tradition, is responsible for the contents of the hadith. This would mean that Masruq was dishonest with his attribution to the companion Abdullah ibn Masud, and as well as the attribution to the prophet. He would have lied about his source and had actually transmitted the hadith to Ibrahim and Ibn Murrah independently. Each of them transmitting the hadith even further.
Masruq’s historical context makes this scenario plausible. As a prominent Kufan scholar who died around 63 AH, he lived during a period of intense theological and political conflict following the First Fitna. The content of this hadith, which forbids excessive mourning practices, would have had particular relevance during this tumultuous period when various factions developed distinct mourning rituals for their martyred leaders. Masruq may have crafted this prohibition and attributed it to the Prophet via Ibn Mas’ud to give divine sanction to his position in these contemporary debates. The branching pattern below Masruq shows a deliberate effort to disseminate this fabricated tradition broadly. By transmitting to both Ibrahim and Ibn Murrah, who were respected scholars in their own right, Masruq ensured his teaching would gain wide circulation and authority. The subsequent proliferation through multiple collectors (Bukhari, Ahmad, Nasa’i, etc.) demonstrates the success of this strategy. Each collection that included the hadith further cemented its perceived authenticity, despite its questionable origins.
The CL is Responsible – Al-A’mash
Another way of reading this diagram is by acknowledging that al-A’mash is the actual originator of this hadith, while the extensive transmission network portrayed in the diagram contains significant fabrications. Under this interpretation, Sufyan emerges as a particularly problematic figure in the transmission. While receiving the hadith authentically from al-A’mash, Sufyan apparently created a parallel, fabricated isnad through Zubayd al-Ayāmī (marked “FALSE SOURCE”) to give the impression of independent verification and wider transmission. This deliberate manipulation served to artificially enhance the hadith’s perceived authority and reliability through what appears to be corroborating chains.
Al-A’mash (Sulayman ibn Mihran, d. 148 AH) was a prominent Kufan hadith transmitter who lived during a period of increasing sectarian division. The content of this particular hadith, which prohibits certain mourning practices, would have had significant implications for the developing ritualistic differences between emerging Muslim factions. By creating a prohibition against excessive mourning and attributing it to the Prophet, al-A’mash may have been addressing contemporary practices he disapproved of, particularly those associated with the commemoration of martyrs like Husayn ibn Ali. The remarkable proliferation of transmission paths below al-A’mash, with links to multiple authoritative collectors including Bukhari, Ahmad, and Nasa’i, demonstrates how effectively this fabrication penetrated the canonical literature once established.
The Case for Al-A’mash as the Most Plausible Originator of the Tradition
Examining the transmission diagram more carefully, Al-A’mash emerges as the most plausible forger of this anti-mourning tradition for several compelling historical and structural reasons. Most significantly, the timing of the hadith’s content aligns far more convincingly with Al-A’mash’s era than with Masruq’s. The prohibition against specific mourning practices (“He is not one of us who tears his garments, strikes his cheeks, and cries with the cry of the Days of Ignorance“) appears to target ritualistic mourning practices that became particularly associated with Shi’a commemoration of Husayn ibn Ali’s martyrdom at Karbala in 680 CE. This event and the subsequent development of distinctive mourning rituals occurred after Masruq’s death (c. 683 CE), making it highly implausible that he would have fabricated a tradition specifically addressing practices that had not yet fully evolved during his lifetime.
Al-A’mash (d. 765 CE), however, lived through the critical period when these Shi’a mourning practices were becoming institutionalized and when sectarian identities were crystallizing. The specific prohibition against chest-beating and face-slapping in the hadith directly corresponds to practices that became prominent in the decades following Karbala, particularly during Al-A’mash’s active period as a scholar. This chronological alignment strongly supports Al-A’mash as the originator.
Latmiyas are a part of the Mourning of Muharram and Ashura, which is a set of rituals commemorating the Battle of Karbala (AD 680/AH 61), that resulted in the martyrdom of Husayn by the Ummayad forces of Ubayd Allah ibn Ziyad and Yazid ibn Mu’awiyah.
- Aghaie, Kamran Scot; Aghaie, Associate Professor of Islamic History Kamran Scot (2004). The Martyrs Of Karbala: Shi’i Symbols and Rituals in Modern Iran.
Sufyan created alternative isnads to artificially enhance the hadith’s perceived transmission network. Sufyan was engaged in deliberate “spreading” – creating false alternative transmission chains to give the impression of wider dissemination than actually existed. This pattern of fabrication makes perfect sense if Al-A’mash was responding to developing sectarian practices of his time by creating a hadith that would delegitimize them through prophetic authority. The elaborate false transmission network above Al-A’mash (through Masruq to Ibn Mas’ud to the Prophet) represents a backward projection designed to give the fabrication historical depth it did not possess.
Additionally, Al-A’mash’s position in Kufa, a center of early Shi’a development and theological debate, placed him at the geographic epicenter of these emerging ritual controversies. As a prominent hadith transmitter with connections to multiple scholarly networks, he was ideally positioned to introduce and disseminate such a tradition effectively. The extensive proliferation of transmission paths below Al-A’mash, reaching into multiple canonical collections, demonstrates the effectiveness of this fabrication strategy. By successfully embedding this tradition into the hadith literature through these elaborate transmission networks, Al-A’mash’s perspective on mourning rituals gained the weight of prophetic authority in the hadith corpus.
